Critically Ill Older Adults' Representation in Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults may be under-represented in critical care research, and results may not apply to this specific population. Our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inclusion of older adults across critical care trials focused on common ICU conditions or interventions. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether older age was used as a stratification variable for randomization or outcome analysis. DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS: We performed a systematic review of previously published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care. We searched PubMed, Ovid, CENTRAL, and Cochrane from 2009 to 2022. Systematic reviews of any interventions across five topics: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis/shock, nutrition, sedation, and mobilization were eligible. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 216 systematic reviews and included a total of 253 RCTs and 113,090 patients. We extracted baseline characteristics and the reported proportion of older adults. We assessed whether any upper age limit was an exclusion criterion for trials, whether age was used for stratification during randomization or data analysis, and if age-specific subgroup analysis was present. The most prevalent topic was sepsis (78 trials, 31%), followed by nutrition (62 trials, 25%), ARDS (39 trials, 15%), mobilization (38 trials, 15%), and sedation (36 trials, 14%). Eighteen trials (7%) had exclusion criteria based on older age. Age distribution with information on older adults prevalence was given in six trials (2%). Age was considered in the analysis of ten trials (5%) using analytic methods to evaluate the outcome stratified by age. Conclusions: In this systematic review, the proportion of older critically ill patients is undetermined, and it is unclear how age is or is not an effect modifier or to what extent the results are valid for older adult groups. Reporting age is important to guide clinicians in personalizing care. These results highlight the importance of incorporating older critically ill patients in future trials to ensure the results are generalizable to this growing population.

Melatonin and Ramelteon for the treatment of delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of melatonin and melatonergic agonist for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, TRIP Medical Database, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google were searched from inception to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies with any type of comparator evaluating melatonin or melatonergic agonist (ramelteon) enrolling any populations (ICU, surgery, geriatric) were included. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data using the Cochrane risk of bias tools (RoB2 and ROBINSI). RESULTS: Out of the 650 screened publications, three RCTs and six observational studies were included (n = 1211). All three RCTs compared melatonin to placebo, as the majority of observational studies compared melatonin or ramelteon to antipsychotics. Two RCTs reported the duration of delirium and a meta-analysis provided a statistical difference between melatonin and placebo (-1.72 days, 95% CI -2.66 to -0.77, p = 0.0004). Five observational studies reported the duration of delirium but only one reported a statistical reduction in the duration of delirium. CONCLUSION: Although melatonin and ramelteon may be effective treatments for delirium, particularly to shorten the duration of delirium and to limit the use of rescue medication, current data is limited in number and in its quality. Clinicians should wait until higher quality data from ongoing RCTs are available before prescribing melatonin to delirious patients.

Models of Care in Geriatric Intensive Care-A Scoping Review on the Optimal Structure of Care for Critically Ill Older Adults Admitted in an ICU.

A growing proportion of critically ill patients admitted in ICUs are older adults. The need for improving care provided to older adults in critical care settings to optimize functional status and quality of life for survivors is acknowledged, but the optimal model of care remains unknown. We aimed to identify and describe reported models of care. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a scoping review on critically ill older adults hospitalized in the ICU. Medline (PubMed), Embase (OvidSP), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Ebsco), and Web of Science (Clarivate) were searched from inception to May 5, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: We included original articles, published abstracts, review articles, editorials, and commentaries describing or discussing the implementation of geriatric-based models of care in critical care, step-down units, and trauma centers. The organization of care had to be described. Articles only discussing geriatric syndromes and specific interventions were not included. DATA EXTRACTION: Full texts of included studies were obtained. We collected publication and study characteristics, structures of care, human resources used, interventions done or proposed, results, and measured outcomes. Data abstraction was done by two investigators and reconciled, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search identified 3,765 articles, and we found 19 reporting on the implementation of geriatric-based models of care in the setting of critical care. Four different models of care were identified: dedicated geriatric beds, geriatric assessment by a geriatrician, geriatric assessment without geriatrician, and a fourth model called "other approaches" including geriatric checklists, bundles of care, and incremental educational strategies. We were unable to assess the superiority of any model due to limited data. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple models have been reported in the literature with varying degrees of resource and labor intensity. More data are required on the impact of these models, their feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.

Impact of anesthesia management during cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis on intra- and postoperative outcomes: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the anesthesia management during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (CRPC) on postoperative outcomes might be of major importance in the process of postoperative recovery. It might have a significant impact on intra- and postoperative outcomes, but the evaluation of this impact seems to be under-reported. To investigate the question whether the anesthesia management was reported in previous studies done in this population and if it had any impact on postoperative outcomes, we propose to conduct a systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: For this review, we will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). Medline/PubMed, Embase, EBM Reviews and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) will be systematically consulted for eligible studies without age, gender, ethnic, and language restriction. The goal of this review will be to assess whether anesthesia monitoring, dosing, and analgesia protocols were reported in this literature on this specific procedure and whether the impact of the anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and postoperative recovery was evaluated. RESULTS: The results of this systematic review will allow to answer the initial question: has the impact of anesthesia management on intraoperative safety and patients' postoperative recovery already been studied and reported in the past for this type of major surgery? And does anesthesia have any impact on postoperative outcomes? DISCUSSION: In the hypothesis that the impact of anesthesia management on patients' postoperative recovery has never been studied, or very little reported in previous studies in this type of major surgery, it would be justified to conduct a randomized controlled trial on this specific objective. REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42019124162.